 | Vol. 1 No. 1
2001 |
THE FALLACIES
| FALLACIES, LOGIC AND THE MODERN WORLD |
Plato (428-347 BC): Greek philosopher and Aristotle's teacher, made seminal contributions on the study of fallacies. |
Once upon a time in Greece, there was a bunch of wandering teachers who, for a certain fee, educated the youth in matters of how to attain success in the conduct of life. The most notable among them were Protagoras of Abdera, Georgias of Leontini, Prodicus of Ceos, Hippias of Elis and Antiphon of Athens. They are the Sophists, and were undoubtedly brilliant philosophers and probably even well intentioned and sincere educators, but they made one wrong move the world could not forget. As they trained the young men of Greece in rhetorics and forensic oratory, their emphasis on the power of words resulted to verbal trickery. The Sophists stressed persuasion rather than truth. The philosopher Socrates (470-399 B.C.) started his unrelenting assault against their shady dealings, and his follower Plato (427-347 B.C.) immortalized their attacks against them in his illuminating literary masterpieces. When Plato wrote the line "arguments, like men, often are pretenders," obviously he had the Sophists and their craft in his mind. It was no accident that when the student of Plato, Aristotle, wrote the first formal studies on logic, the verbal trickeries of the Sophists was included in their scope. Since then, the study of fallacies, as the Sophists' verbal trickery came to be called, has been considered an integral part of logic.
The fallacies are lies and faulty arguments that, although incorrect, are subjectively convincing. That means they are not just plain lies and faulty arguments, for there are countless other lies and incorrect arguments whose malice and faultiness are obvious and could not deceive anybody. The fallacies are a special type, for they can easily pass off as truth and cogent reasoning. But remembering the definition of logic as the study of correct thinking and argumentation makes us think what is the place for the fallacies in it? If the fallacies are lies and incorrect reasoning, anomalous, deceptive and faulty arguments, why should they be included in the study of the systematic and the correct? The reason why they are considered part of logic is the idea that through a comprehensive study of what is incorrect, faulty and deceptive, we may learn what is to be avoided and, eventually, what is to be pursued. It is just like the medical science which is about good health, but has to deal also with diseases in order to fight and prevent them and thereby preserving good health in the end.
Though the Sophists were long gone their legacy has remained alive with us. To date, the most prolific spinner of fallacies are the commercial advertisements whose glossy prints, gigantic billboards, lovely jingles, and attractive video clips are omnipresent, trying to cast their seductive spells on the unwary. In them the use of fallacies has been exalted to the status of fine arts. Closely following the advertisers are the politicians, the most seasoned and the proverbial fallacy workers. Their wagging tongues, calculated gestures and cunning moves are designed to fool voters. Moreover, the ghosts of the Sophists are restless, they can actually possess anybody. Fallacies can be made and uttered by anyone, by our enemies and friends, by our professors and classmates, by our parents and even by ourselves. The world is in fact buzzing with lies. The only way to be spared from them is to avoid them, but the only way to avoid them is to know them in the first place. It is quite frustrating to know that there may be hundreds of fallacies circulating around, and several of theses hundreds are hybrids -- meaning, single incorrect arguments that are incorrect in more than one way. What follows are studies of some of the most fundamental and elementary kinds of fallacies.
Fallacies can be classified into two major blocks, structural fallacies and fallacies of content. The first block of fallacies that we are going to examine are those arguments that are incorrect on the account of their faulty logical structure, hence they are called structural fallacies. They are the arguments that violate the very basic rules of inductive and deductive inference.
| THE INDUCTIVE FALLACY OF HASTY GENERALIZATION |
In the second chapter of this book we have talked about the two principles for higher probability in inductive reasoning: first, the wider the scope of the premises, the higher probability; and second, the more representative the scope, the higher probability. The inductive fallacy of hasty generalization occurs when any or both of the two principles are violated. For instance, in a socio-economic research conducted in the university belt, whose respondents were John, Mark, Chester and Ray. It so happened that these kids are children of some multimillionaire industrialists. It would be a hasty generalization to say later on that the research found out that students in the university belt are all children of multimillionaire industrialists. Such a distortion happened because the research only considered four students, a sample which is a very small fraction when compared to the tens of thousands of students that constitute the total population of the university belt. In another instance, this same fallacy may also occur. Say a research was done on the intellectual capacities of the students within the Mendiola Consortium. The respondents were all taken from the list of students with IQs above 120. Since the respondents were not of the typical or the average bracket, whatever the result of such a research is already distorted. Topsy-turvy researches, pre-election and other poll surveys and advertisements that blare out "nine out of ten experts recommend this. . ." are prone to commit this type of fallacy.
The following types of fallacies are faulty in the sense that they are patterned after invalid deductive forms. The first four fallacies are invalid categorical syllogisms, the fifth one is variations of the invalid conditional syllogisms, and the sixth one is variations of the invalid inclusive disjunctive syllogisms.
In the preceding chapter, we have discussed the four rules in constructing and evaluating categorical syllogisms, the first one of which states that a valid categorical syllogism must have three categories, no more and no less, and each of these three categories must be used twice to refer to essentially the same class. The four-term fallacy is a violation of this first rule. Hence, the following argument with more than three categories is an example of this fallacy.
| | Everybody loves a lover.
I am a lover.
Thus, everybody loves me. |
| The Fallacy of Faulty Exclusion |
The second rule for constructing and evaluating categorical syllogisms states that in a valid categorical syllogism either there must be no exclusion; or if ever there is, there must be two, one of which should appear in the conclusion. The fallacy of faulty exclusion is a violation of this second rule. The following argument is an example of this.
| | All traditional politicians are not honest.
The speaker of the lower house is not a traditional politician.
So, he is honest. |
| The Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle |
The third rule for constructing and evaluating categorical syllogisms states that in a valid categorical syllogism, the middle category must be distributed at least once. The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a violation of this rule. The following argument is an example of this.
| | All high-quality goods are expensive.
This product is expensive.
So, this must have high quality. |
| The Fallacy of Illicit Distribution |
The fourth rule for constructing and evaluating categorical syllogisms states that in a valid categorical syllogism, every category in the conclusion that is distributed must also be distributed in the premise in which it appears. The fallacy of illicit distribution is a violation of this rule. The following argument is an example of this.
| | All stupid politicians hamper our country's development.
That senator is not a stupid politician.
So, he does not hamper our country's development. |
| Faulty Conditional Syllogism |
In the preceding chapter we also have learned that there are four variations of the conditional syllogism, two of which are valid and the other two invalid. The invalid variations are
| | If p then q | | If p then q | there is no p | | there is q |  | | | So, there is no q. | | So, there is p. |
The fallacy of faulty conditional syllogism happens when anyone of these invalid variations is followed. The following arguments are examples of this fallacy.
| | If you are an Ilongo, then you are a Filipino. You are not an Ilongo. Thus, you are not a Filipino. If a man is good, he will take care of his family's welfare.
My neighbor takes good care of his family's welfare.
Hence, he is a good man. |
| Faulty Inclusive Disjunctive Syllogism |
In the preceding chapter we also have learned that there are four variations of the inclusive disjunctive syllogism, two of which are valid, and the other two invalid. The invalid variations are
| | Either p or q | | Either p or q | p is there | | q is there | | | | So, q is not there. | | So, p is not there. |
The fallacy of faulty inclusive disjunctive syllogism happens when anyone of these invalid variations is followed. The following arguments are examples of this fallacy.
Success in life is defined either by wealth or by peaceful happiness. Mr. Lorenzo feels successful with his wealth. Thus, he does not define success by peaceful happiness. To ensure good training either you look for a very good school for your kids, or you closely supervise their studies and learning at home.
The Guerreros closely supervise their kids studies and learning at home.
Hence, they will not look for a very good school for their kids. |
The second major block of fallacies that we are going to examine are faulty not because of their structure, but on account of their questionable content. Hence they are called fallacies of content. Under this major block, we have three groups, namely linguistic manipulation, psychological warfare and logical maneuvers.
There are some fallacies of content that are fabricated by manipulating the language used in order to achieve some desired effect. The fallacies under this group would exploit the nature of language in general and of words in particular.
It has been established since classical times that for every word there is something signified. This thing that is signified by the word is what we call the denotation, or the objective meaning. But every denotation and every word will always imply certain attributes and characteristics, these are the connotation, or the subjective meaning. For instance, the words man of principle, obstinate, and pig-headed roughly denote the same thing, that is a person who is firm and who sticks to his principles. But the connotation of each word varies from one another. Man of principle obviously sounds highly positive compared to pig-headed. Whereas denotations are usually fixed and rigid, connotations are not. The fallacies of linguistic manipulation exploits this connotative fluidity in order to impress and intimidate, to seduce and to secure sympathies, or simply to mislead others. In this group of fallacies, we can see that though language is the medium through which we convey truth, it can also be the medium through which we conceal the same truth.
Jargon means technical and specialized language. When used among experts and among persons of the same field of practice, who are all familiar with the denotations of their specialized terminology, jargon is all right and even helpful for the sake of precision. But when maliciously used for an audience who are not experts or who belong to other fields of practice in order to sound impressive and intimidating, the presence of jargon becomes questionable. When a school physician tells the parents of somebody who is injured in a campus brawl "the patient is suffering from circumorbital hematoma, the prescribed treatment is a regulated application of low-temperature compress, and our prognosis is highly positive given an ample time frame," when he simply means that "the patient got a blackeye, he needs cold compress and his condition would disappear after a few days," is guilty of the fallacy of prestige jargon. The use of jargon can be fallacious in two ways. First, when somebody starts using highly technical words, the immediate connotation would be is that such a person is an expert in his field, and who would dare to argue against an expert. That is intimidation. Second, by using jargon one can easily obscure his own points thereby confusing others and preventing them to counter argue. Next time when you hear somebody saying "such a phenomenal event occurred in accordance to the pre-designed volitions of the supreme and divine being," when he clearly meant "it is God's will," malicious jargon is there.
The fallacy of the use of emotional words happens when one carefully employs words and images that are heavy with emotional connotations in order to secure the sympathies of others. If you would take a look at political speeches, both by politicians and activists, you will see recurrent symbols such as Inang Bayan, Tayong mga mahihirap at ina-api, si Gat Jose Rizal, si Ninoy. These are words and symbols that have been invested with rich meanings and can easily arouse the emotions and sympathies of the listeners.
Words can either have negative or positive connotations. Sometimes we can hide unpleasant denotations by employing words with positive connotations. This is the fallacy of double talking, or euphemism. This happens whenever we carefully package our unpleasant ideas in nice sounding words. Here, words are used to hide, to mask and to mislead others. For instance, gambling as an pleasant connotation, so the organizers of Lotto posted billboards saying play here when they clearly meant gamble here. The bad news that there will be tax increase can be stated as "there will be a tax enhancement," or inflation as "price enhancement." When Ferdinand Marcos declared the martial law, he called his regime constitutional authoritarianism, when everybody knows that it was actually a dictatorship.
Classically, man has been defined as a rational and intelligent animal. Yet, modern psychology and experience have proven that such a definition is only half true. Aside from being rational and intelligent, man is also an animal of sensuousness, of emotions of will and of the sub-conscious. The human mind is not all intellect and cognition but a faculty with several aspects. It has a sense and perceptual aspect, an affective and emotional aspect, a cognitive and intellectual aspect, a volitional or willing aspect, and a subconscious aspect. Most often, man is not guided by his cognitive and intellectual powers but by his sensuousness, emotions and subconscious drives. The fallacies of psychological warfare target these drives and motivations of man. They will seduce and intimidate man's sensuousness, emotions and even his sub-conscious.
The fallacy of meaning from association is perhaps the most abused fallacy in the production of commercial advertisements. Here, the advertised products are put side by side with logically unrelated things and ideas, to suggest that if you purchase this or that product you too get the associated things and ideas. For instance, a bottle of whiskey is shown in front of a famous masterpiece painting. The advertisers had carefully calculated it that the intended audience will associate the fine quality of the masterpiece with the quality of the whiskey. Commonly, the advertisements would associate cereals and dairy products with trim youthfulness, and vibrant good health; beer and other alcoholic beverages and cigarettes with the lifestyle of the macho men; while perfume, shampoo, soap and even deodorants with sexuality and romance. Though from a logical point of view, the unrelatedness of the products and the things associated with them is quite obvious, still many of us are persuaded by this fallacy. The fact that it is frequently employed by advertisers attest to its effectivity. Marshall McLuhan, a pioneering theorist in mass communications, has even suggested that advertisements will not only seduce man's sensuousness and emotions, but even his sub-conscious itself. This is what McLuhan calls the subliminal seduction. This same fallacy is employed by politicians whenever they circulate pictures of themselves in a pose with, say, Mother Theresa of Calcutta, or the Pope, or the Archbishop of Manila, or with any other important personalities, in newspapers, self-printed calendars, and posters.
The fallacy of misuse of authority is widely used psychological tactic. Since we cannot possibly be experts in all sorts of fields, consulting and appealing to authorities are oftentimes useful. When one finds a mathematical problem too difficult, it is only appropriate to consult one's mathematics professor, or when having problems with an English composition, the best thing to do is to approach the language professor. The fallacy of misuse of authority happens whenever we cite an authority in one given field regarding an issue that is outside his/her field of competence. Hence, it is all right to consult Dean Lucrecia Kasilag, national artist in music, on issues pertaining to music. But to consult her regarding problems in architecture or literature would be questionable and fallacious. We have to remember always that the authorities in one field are not necessarily experts in other fields. When a movie actress recommends a designer jeans, or when a basketball player is shown to prefer a particular brand of soft drink, they too are guilty of this fallacy.
It is a fact that it is easier to accept a lie that one has heard many times before than to accept truth that one has never heard of. The fallacy of repeated assertion takes advantage of this psychological fact. This fallacy repeats or multiplies essentially the same assertion with the aim that sooner or later people will accept it as true. Adolf Hitler used this fallacy, when he practically littered Germany with his ideological banners and slogans. The politician who clutters all the street corners and public walls with his and office long before election time, and with truck-loads of posters during the campaign season is guilty of this fallacy. More ingenious advertisers will compose catchy jingles or television scenes that will hopefully recur over and over again in heads of the audience, so that eventhough the advertisement is no longer in front of them they will still see it or hear it in their minds. But of course stating a lie a hundred times will certainly not make it true.
 The person's attitude is his habitual way of regarding other persons, objects, situations or ideas. The fallacy of attitude fitting is done through inserting into the argument persons, objects, situations or ideas that are known in advance to be positively or negatively regarded by the intended audience. As early as the later part of the ninth century, the Vikings discovered a huge island that is 85 % covered with ice. Wanting to attract more settlers, they named it Greenland. At about the same time they also discovered another territory which was lush and fertile, wanting to keep the island for themselves they called it Iceland. They knew very well that other peoples love the images of a green and fertile land, and were disgusted with the images of ice and frozen wasteland. Their strategy of naming in order to attract and repel was an early example of attitude fitting. Modern advertisers knew very well our seemingly incurable colonial mentality, and how our people esteem products from the USA as superior to our local counterparts. Thus, they packaged cigarettes, soap, shirts, as having the spirit of the USA, or have them recommended by some American doctors, or inform the audience that such products are preferred by most Americans. Politicians knew too the attitude of Filipinos towards movie stars. If they can afford it, they will certainly bring one or more actors along their campaign trail. Some politicians would even go to the extent of enlisting actors as their running mates or including them in the list of candidates in their party. Tokenism is a favorite ploy among politicians. This fallacy happens when people are misled to see a token gestures as the real thing. Whenever substantial action is needed but performing it would be too expensive, time and effort consuming, and even distracting to one's agenda, politicians resort to tokenism. Here, they will perform a little token gesture, dramatize it as much as possible and let the press shout about it as loud as they can. On August 21, 1971, Plaza Miranda was bombed. Two grenades exploded in the middle of a political rally, which killed nine and wounded several persons. Among the injured were Senators Roxas, Salonga, Osmena, and Kalaw. To appease the people, the incumbent president publicly ordered a thorough investigation, fully knowing that after the excitement would die down, the public clamor for justice will also wane. Of course, the criminals were never captured. One of the favorite themes politicians love to print in their campaign posters is their token shot hugging a dirty street urchin here, or shaking hands with miserable slum dwellers there, as if to document their love for the poor and the downtrodden who after the elections they immediately neglect and abandon.
When one poisons a well all the water that is drawn from it becomes poisoned and unpotable. The fallacy of poisoning the well works similarly. It happens when one discounts in advance the opponent's evidence, proof, or counter argument, thereby preventing him from employing them. When a biblical fundamentalist says "theories are speculations, and speculations are always unreliable, now how do you prove your theory of evolution?," he is already discounting in advance the value of a theory and has prevented his opponent to argue in favor of it. Hence, he has poisoned the well from which his opponent may draw his evidences, proofs and counter arguments. When your biology professor exhorts the class that only lazy students ask for examinations with open notes, then asks later on who wants an examination with an open notes he is using the same ploy.
Aesop, a 6th century Greek folk hero and teller of animal fables, had a story about a fox who felt so bad because he could not grab the hanging bunch of grapes. After some more tries the fox finally gave up and comforted himself, saying, "Anyway, those grapes are sour. Who would like to eat sour grapes?" When one's ego is placed in an unpleasant situation one can spin untrue, but pleasant, reasons to settle things. Some teachers who were driven into their profession by circumstances would rationalize that it is their decision to be in their profession because molding the youth into better citizens is the noblest task a man could ever dream of. If real reasons are not available, pleasant reasons can always be made. This is the fallacy of rationalization, it makes a clearly delicious bunch of grapes sour, and the obviously sour lemon sweet.
 | Galileo Galilei (1564-1642): Italian professor of mathematics and one of the architects of modern science. |
This fallacy still bears its classical Latin name. Baculum means a club or staff, and argumentum ad baculum roughly means an argument accompanied with a threatening blow of a club. This fallacy happens when force or the threat of force is used instead of proper reason. A professor who is bombarded with numerous questions regarding a controversial subject matter can easily control everything by screaming "shut up, or else I'll flunk you all," but he commits this fallacy. The father who says "you better study well, or I'll cut your allowance," is as guilty as the board room strategist who insists "all executives should act in accordance with this proposal, otherwise the CEO will recall their appointments." Maybe the most famous and the most dramatic example of this fallacy in modern times is the life of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). With the use of the newly invented telescope, Galileo compiled mathematical and empirical data supporting the Copernican heliocentric world system, which unfortunately was seemingly in contradiction with the bible. Instead of arguing with him on scientific and mathematical grounds, Rome merely issued an edict condemning Copernicanism in 1616, then tried and sentenced Galileo to life imprisonment for "vehement suspicion of heresy" in 1633.
Argumentum ad hominem is another fallacy that still bears its classical Latin name. It simply means argument against the person. Normally, arguments attack the opponent's arguments and counter-arguments. The fallacy of argumentum ad hominem attacks the person of the opponent himself. It wrongly assumes that if you discredit a person, his argument is also discredited. Yet, obviously it does not follow that if a person is a thief, his arguments are all wrong. When the prefect of students yells at a defendant in a disciplinary investigation, "I don't believe your alibis, you are a cheat ever since" he is arguing against the person of the student and not against the student's reasons and evidences. However, in court adjudications argumentum ad hominem may be reasonably used. Lawyers may attack the testimony of witnesses by focusing on their character, credibility and expertise because witnesses and experts like doctors, and psychologists often present opinions which we cannot argue with directly. The next best way then is to evaluate their credibility, integrity, and judgment.
When reasons, evidences, proofs and answers are unavailable, one can still fool others by using proper gestures, well calculated intonations and positive language. The fallacy of confident manner is saying too little or nothing at all in so much impressive words and body language. This fallacy is not only useful to politicians, who are forced to make stands and comments about so many things, but also to students who are taking oral examinations and graded recitations. When accompanied by the fallacy of prestige jargon, the one we have mentioned previously, or by the fallacy of diversion, which we are going to discuss in the following section under logical maneuvers, the fallacy of confident manner can be very effective.
 If the fallacies under psychological warfare target man's sensuousness, emotions and the subconscious, the next group of fallacies aims to fool the cognitive and intellectual aspect of the human mind itself. Hence, this group of fallacies require some degree of rhetorical skill and a certain competence in logical procedures. This groups of fallacies are more subtle than the fallacies under psychological warfare, for here they will confront the critical and analytical aspect of the human mind.
The fallacy of composition behaves like an inductive argument. From the observation of each particular member of an organized whole it moves to the whole itself. This fallacy points out that if each of the member of a given group has a particular characteristic feature, then the group as a whole has this same characteristic feature. If Mark, Jun, Carl and Jim are good vocalists, and you assume that their quartet must also be good, you commit this fallacy. Here, the fact that the quality and feature of the group does not only depend upon each of the qualities of its members but more so on the organization of these members is consciously overlooked. Thus, five very good point guards will not necessarily make a very good basketball team, and if all the atoms that constitute this book are invisible it does not follow that the book is also invisible.
An exact opposite of the fallacy of composition is the fallacy of division, and this fallacy behaves like a deductive categorical argument. From the observation of the organized whole it moves to each particular member. This fallacy points out that if a given group as a whole has a particular characteristic feature, then each of its members has this same characteristic feature. We know that Bangladesh is an economically poor country, but it is wrong to say that therefore Mishal Sufyan, who is from Bangladesh, is poor. Like in the case of the fallacy of composition, here the fact that the quality and feature of the group does not only depend upon each of the qualities of its members but more so on the organization of these members is also consciously overlooked. Thus, it does not necessarily follow that each of the members of a great symphony orchestra are great musicians.
The fallacy of false dilemma, or the black and white fallacy, operates in the following manner. First, it effaces the various alternatives in between two extreme alternatives in a particular issue. Thus, the various gradation of gray in between black and white are concealed giving us only two alternatives, black and white. Second, it makes us choose what alternative to take knowing in advance that whatever we choose it will be to our disadvantage. Derek Bok, former president of Harvard University, used this fallacy when he said "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance." He disregarded the other learning alternatives in between formal education and ignorance. When the secretary of defense argues for a higher military allocation saying, "An increase in military budget means an increase in safety, and a decrease in military budget means a decrease in safety. Hence, we have to make a choice in between a higher military allocation and being unsafe," he is likewise using the fallacy. When we tend to think in terms of extreme points, we become vulnerable to this fallacy. When a thing is not white, it is wrong to make the conclusion that it is black; or when a certain deed is not good, it does not mean that it is evil. We should not overlook the basic fact that aside from the opposite extremes there are most often intermediate positions, neutral shades, or several other alternative courses of action.
If the fallacy of false dilemma conceals the various shades in the middle ground and leaves us only with the opposite extremes, the fallacy of the argument of the beard does the opposite thing by capitalizing the various shades in the middle ground and concealing the differences of the two opposite extremes in the end. Here, the fact that there is a continuous and gradual differentiation of the elements in the middle ground is used to raise doubt regarding the real difference between the opposite extremes. The name of this fallacy can be traced back to the ancient question of how many whiskers will make a beard. Certainly, one whisker will not make a beard, and neither will ten or twenty. Perhaps five hundred whiskers will make a beard. But how about 499 whiskers, will one whisker less make a difference? Certainly not, 499 whiskers is still a beard. How about 498, will another whisker less make a difference? This subtraction of one whisker at a time with the reason that one whisker less will not make a difference may go on until you will have one whisker left and you say a single whisker is a beard after all. Our inability to pinpoint the exact minimum number of whiskers making a beard does not mean that there is no difference between a whisker and a beard. A person uses the argument of the beard when he argues that if a car can accommodate five persons, why can't it accommodate one more? And if it can accommodate six, why can't it accommodate one more, after all one additional load will not make much difference. And if it can accommodate seven, why can't it accommodate one more? And of course this argument can go on until you will have twenty-five or thirty-five persons seated snugly inside the car, because one more additional load will not make a big difference.
The fallacy of the strawman is basically a counterargument. Here, the arguer misrepresents or misinterprets the opponent's position by exaggeration or distortion with the view of an easier attack. In effect, the arguer is attacking a strawman, an effigy of the enemy, instead of real enemy, or like the old Don Quixote attacking the windmills instead of the dragons. It is in fact easier to attack a strawman, the windmills, and a simplified and distorted arguments for they weak caricatures and could never fight back. But when the strawman, when the effigy, when the windmills are conquered, it does not follow that the real enemy, the dragons, and the real argument of the opponent are also conquered. A religious fundamentalist who scorns the theory of evolution is guilty of this when he rephrases it in its weakest form. "This theory states that man descended from the monkeys. It is plainly ridiculous, how can a human being such as you and I descend from apes?" In reality, this fundamentalist is not attacking the strongly grounded and sophisticated theory of evolution, what he has ridiculed is a caricature or a strawman version of the theory.
The fallacy of slippery slope happens when one objects to and criticizes a particular action with the reason that once such an action is performed, it will simply lead unavoidably to a similar yet unpleasant action, which again will lead to an even more undesirable action, and so on, sliding down the slippery slope until unknown horrors lurking at the bottom will be the ultimate fate. This fallacy is also known as the grand domino theory, in allusion to a carefully arranged box of dominoes which tumbles one after another when the first domino in line is toppled down. There was a time in our history when colonial officials were debating whether the Filipinos should be taught the Spanish language. Fray Francisco Gainza, O.P., presented the famous argument that once the Castillian language was given to the masses they would gain access to the Enlightened and liberal (which for the friars meant immoral and anti-clerical) ideas from Europe. This would ensure the masses' loss of faith in the Church and loss of loyalty to the Crown. That was a perfect historical example of this fallacy. It has been said that once upon a time Aesop defended a corrupt politician in front of a jury with another story about fox and the hedgehog. The fox was irritated by the fleas, and the hedgehog offered to remove them from the fox's back. But the fox replied "No, these fleas are full and no longer suck much blood. If you take them away, new, hungry fleas will come." Then, Aesop addressed the jury, "if you put my client to death, others will come along who are not rich and will rob you completely."
Perhaps this the fallacy of diversion is not a totally strange operation for students. Perhaps all high school and college students have done this fallacy in one of their essay tests or graded recitations before. This is what they do when their professor asks them a question whose answer they do not know, and start to reply lengthily regarding some related things that they know. Diversion means wandering from the main point, or going away from the subject matter. Hence, if your physics professor asks you about the theory of relativity, try talking about the life story of Albert Einstein, or of the invention of the atomic bomb. But, no matter how nicely you have proven a related issue, and no matter how close this related issue may be to the main point, still you have not proven the main point. Politicians resort to the fallacy of diversion when during a political campaign instead of proving to the people his capabilities, his integrity and sense of leadership, he spends his time talking about what he thinks the people would like to hear: promises, smear campaign, tales about the movie stars, sentimental or flattering stories, and even a vocal duet with his wife. Rhetorics, and the skill to move from one topic to another are the key to a persuasive fallacy of diversion.
When a person runs short of reasons for his claims he may resort to the fallacy of begging the question, and if he has the rhetorical skill he can appear as persuasive all the same. This fallacy happens when the argument assumes that which it is trying to prove.  If your professor in ethics asks you what an honest person is and you answer "an honest person is a person who is honest," you are assuming the idea that you were asked to define and for that you are guilty of the fallacy of begging the question. The old folks also fall into this fallacy when they say: "The youth of today are not as well-behaved as the youth of the olden times. You know why? Well in our times we were always well-behaved." One political cartoon in the eighties used this fallacy as its punching line. The cartoon character in a pensive mood starts his soliloquy: "Government teachers are not well-paid. This is because the persons responsible for our national budget are not competent. They are not competent because they were not properly educated. They were not properly educated because their teachers were not enthusiastic. They were not enthusiastic because they were not well-compensated. Thus, government teachers are not well-paid". Notice that this can be repeated on and on without actually proving why the government teachers are not well-paid. When you base your argument on something which itself is not secured, your argument will not be sound. It is like the three moron cowboys who when entering into the county saloon and seeing no hitching post around, tied the first horse to the second, the second to the third, and the third to the first, and thought their horses are well-secured. For this fallacy, the wider you make the circle, the more chances you get of being effective. The fallacy of the appeal to ignorance occurs when we assume that in a certain dispute, the failure to prove one side is a ground to conclude the truth of the other side. The fact that we cannot prove that creatures from the outer space do not exist, clearly does not mean that we can logically conclude that they exist. Theologians and scientist cannot prove that there is God, yet such a failure does not mean that we can say there is no God.
As suggested by the name itself, this fallacy happens whenever one presents an argument that contains two assumptions which simultaneously cannot be true. When your physics professor asks you what happens if an irresistible force collides with an immovable object, he has assumed two things that are contradictory: the force is not irresistible if there is an immovable object, just as the object is not immovable if there is an irresistible force. Politicians use this fallacy when they promise the people that they will cut the taxes in half and double all government services. But how can they reduce the government's source of income if they are planning to increase its budget, and how can they increase the budget if they are planning to reduce the governments source of income. Dr. Jose Rizal used this fallacy when he lampooned the tendency of the Filipinos to value professional titles and lofty social status. In his novel Noli Me Tangere, he talks about a snooty Dona Victorina who was married to a vagabond from Spain:
Then the idea that her husband shall pass for a doctor of medicine and surgery came into her head, and she told him about it. "But my dear, d-do y-you w-want to h-have me a-arrested?" He asked with much fear. "Don't be a dunce! I shall arrange it myself," she said. "You will not have to treat any patient but it is my wish to have people call you doctor and me therefore, doctora, Do you see?" The next day therefore Rodoreda , the owner of the marble shop at Carriedo street, was ordered to prepare a slab of block marble and to engrave on it: Dr. de Espadana, SPECIALIST IN ALL KINDS OF DISEASES. |
This fallacy is committed whenever one tries to justify an admittedly faulty action by charging whoever accuses him with a similar wrong. The fallacy of two wrongs make a right is based on the assumption that if others are doing a similar thing, our wrong deeds are justified or made tolerable. If Americans accuse us of the countless human rights violation in the country, we think the counter-accusation "How about you? Don't you practice abortion?" settles the issue. White South Africans did the same thing. When the Americans criticized their apartheid system, they hurled back the comment "the United States was the last major nation to abolish legal slavery."
It is true that words have their own proper meanings, yet when used in language, their intended meanings do not only depend on each of them. In language meaning is not determined only by each of the meanings of each particular word. In language, the meaning of a word is modified by the neighboring words, and the sense of a sentence is modified by the neighboring sentences and paragraphs. When one indiscriminately cuts a word or groups of words away from their original context, there is a possibility that you will end up distorting its meaning or sense. A pro-gun leaflet cites a Metro Manila mayor as making a statement "citizens keeping guns and defending themselves is a must." But in reality the mayor was saying "citizens keeping guns and defending themselves is a must if what we envisioned is a society infested with anarchy and vigilantism." In their effort to sensationalize trivial things, tabloids are notorious of this. In one issue, a tabloid flashes a headline in blaring red letters "Actress Rosana was raped," of course when you read further you will know that the actress had a rape scene in her forth coming movie.
Before finally closing this chapter, we first make some brief retrospects on the important points that we have covered. First, we traced the art of conjuring tricky arguments back to the Sophist of ancient Greece, thereby also tracing the explanation why Aristotle included them in his studies in logic. Second, we defined the fallacies as lies and incorrect arguments that are subjectively convincing, and justified that they rightly belonged in the philosophical study of systematic thinking and argumentation, just as the study of diseases also rightly belonged to the medical concern for good health. Third, we studied the two types of structural fallacies, the inductive fallacy of hasty generalization and the deductive fallacies. We have learned that their being fallacious is based on their faulty logical structure. Fifth, we examined the three types of fallacies of content, the linguistic manipulation, the psychological warfare, and logical maneuvers. We learned that their being fallacious is based on their anomalous contents. Linguistic manipulation exploits the nature of language, psychological warfare targets man's sensuousness, emotions and sub-conscious, and logical maneuvers aim to fool the intellect itself. Though we have not covered all the fallacies, definitely we have examined and studied the most common and widely used ones, thereby forewarning us and arming us with the basic knowledge so that we will not be victimized again by their tricks.
|